Comparative Analysis of Monohull and Catamaran Passenger Vessels: Performance in Shallow Waters
Downloads
This study investigated modifying a 500 GT monohull passenger vessel into a catamaran while maintaining displacement, with the aim of enhancing resistance. Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) analysis, following the International Towing Tank Conference (ITTC) protocols, was employed to simulate fluid flow around vessel geometries. Simulations were conducted at 8 knots in shallow water with a depth of 3 m, resulting in a depth-to-draft ratio (h/t) of 1.5. The results showed that the monohull experienced a 102.56 kN resistance, which is 35% higher than that of the catamaran's 35.73 kN. The resistance of the monohull was influenced by the increased fluid flow velocity around the bow and stern, leading to a greater hull-water interaction. Pressure distribution analysis highlighted elevated pressure on the monohull bow due to high-velocity fluid interactions, while the catamaran configuration effectively managed the load distribution. Power calculations, assuming 50% efficiency, determined that the monohull required a 566 hp engine, whereas the catamaran required 197 hp. These findings emphasize the impact of vessel design on performance and efficiency, providing insights into engine selection and operational efficiency in maritime engineering.
“Monohull vs Catamaran: A Deep Dive into Design and Performance.” Retrieved March 27, 2025, from https://info.sailingvirgins.com/blog/monohull-vs-catamaran-a-deep-dive-into-design-and-performance
Seif, M., and Amani, E. “Performance comparison between planing monohull and catamran at high Froude numbers.” Iranian Journal of Science and Technology Transactions of Mechanical Engineering, Vol. 28, No. 4, (2004), 435–441.
https://doi.org/10.22099/ijstm.2013.969
“Resmi Dilaunching, Kapal KMP Takabonerate Akan Tiba Di Selayar Bulan Desember - Selayarnews.com.” Retrieved March 28, 2025, from
“Building Catamarans - RARCC - Raja Ampat Research & Conservation Centre.” Retrieved March 27, 2025, from https://stichting-rarcc.org/projects/educationawareness-projects/building-catamarans/
Ulgen, K., and Dhanak, M. R. “Hydrodynamic Performance of a Catamaran in Shallow Waters.” Journal of Marine Science and Engineering, Vol. 10, No. 9, (2022), 1169.
https://doi.org/10.3390/jmse10091169
Everest, J. T. Some Research on the Hydrodynamics of Catamarans and Multi-hulled Vessels in Calm Water. North East Coast Institution of Engineers and Shipbuilders. Retrieved from
https://books.google.co.id/books?id=Lz1JOAAACAAJ
Mittendorf, M., and Papanikolaou, A. D. “Hydrodynamic hull form optimization of fast catamarans using surrogate models.” Ship Technology Research, Vol. 68, No. 1, (2021), 14–26.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09377255.2020.1802165
“Catamaran vs. Monohull: We Changed, Should You? | The Catamaran Gurus.” Retrieved March 27, 2025, from https://catamaranguru.com/catamaran-vs-monohull-we-changed-should-you/
Kusuma, C., Ariana, I. M., and Ali, B. “Redesign KCR 60m Bow with Axe Bow Type To Reduce Ship Resistance.” IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, Vol. 557, No. 1, (2020), 012033.https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/557/1/012033
Gittens, J. E., Smith, T. J., Suleiman, R., and Akid, R. “Current and emerging environmentally-friendly systems for fouling control in the marine environment.” Biotechnology Advances, Vol. 31, No. 8, (2013), 1738–1753.
https://doi.org/10.1016/J.BIOTECHADV.2013.09.002
Martić, I., Degiuli, N., Borčić, K., and Grlj, C. G. “Numerical Assessment of the Resistance of a Solar Catamaran in Shallow Water.” Journal of Marine Science and Engineering, Vol. 11, No. 9, (2023), 1706. https://doi.org/10.3390/jmse11091706
Duman, S., Boulougouris, E., Aung, M. Z., Xu, X., and Nazemian, A. “Numerical Evaluation of the Wave-Making Resistance of a Zero-Emission Fast Passenger Ferry Operating in Shallow Water by Using the Double-Body Approach.” Journal of Marine Science and Engineering, Vol. 11, No. 1, (2023), 187. https://doi.org/10.3390/jmse11010187
Ali, A., Maimun, A., Ahmed, Y. M., and Rahimuddin. “Resistance analysis of a semi-SWATH design concept in shallow water.” Journal of Marine Science and Application, Vol. 16, No. 2, (2017), 182–189. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11804-017-1406-x
“Catamarans: Advantages and Downsides of a double-hulled.” Retrieved March 27, 2025, from https://partyboatcharter.com/catamarans-advantages/
ITTC. ITTC-Recommended Procedures and Guidelines: Practical Guidelines for Ship CFD Applications. 26th ITTC Specialist Committee on CFD in Marine Hydrodynamics.
ITTC. “ITTC – Recommended Procedures and Guidelines - Practical guidelines for ship CFD applications. 7.5-03-02-03 (Revision 01).” In 27th International Conference Towing Tank (pp. 31 August–5 September. Denmark).
Menter, F. R. “Two-equation eddy-viscosity turbulence models for engineering applications.” AIAA Journal, Vol. 32, No. 8, (1994), 1598–1605. https://doi.org/10.2514/3.12149
Menter, F. R. “Zonal two equation κ-ω turbulence models for aerodynamic flows.” In AIAA 23rd Fluid Dynamics, Plasmadynamics, and Lasers Conference, 1993 (pp. 1–21).
ANSYS. “ANSYS® Academic Research.” ANSYS CFX-Solver Modeling Guide, (2013).
Bayraktar, E., Mierka, O., and Turek, S. “Benchmark computations of 3D laminar flow around a cylinder with CFX, OpenFOAM and FeatFlow.” International Journal of Computational Science and Engineering, Vol. 7, No. 3, (2012), 253–266.
https://doi.org/10.1504/IJCSE.2012.048245
Ford, C. L., and Winroth, P. M. “On the scaling and topology of confined bluff-body flows.” Journal of Fluid Mechanics, No. 876, (2019), 1018–1040. https://doi.org/10.1017/jfm.2019.583
Tu, J., Yeoh, G.-H., and Liu, C. “Chapter 4-CFD Mesh Generation: A Practical Guideline.” In Computational Fluid Dynamics (Third Edit., pp. 125–154). UK: Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-101127-0.00004-0
Anderson, J. D. Computational Fluid Dynamics: The Basics with Applications. New York, USA. pp. 526-532: McGraw-Hill. Retrieved from
